First, I am not a birther. I go to Doc's, Squeeky's and read NBC and Bad Fiction. I often read here, but this is my first time to post.I generally read all the docs in the birther cases as they become available. I had not paid any attention to the Archibald case. I thought any info was already public from Strunk, etc., and that the FBI didn't investigate elected officials. In reading the Declaration of David M. Hardy, on page 7 and 8, where he talks about the exemption 7 threshold, it looks like they do investigate elected officials. That surprised me.I don't think Archibald has a chance of getting anything released, as it should be. I just didn't know the FBI did that.The FBI doesn't do that. You appear to have misread the Declaration. It is the invariable policy of the FBI to cite 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) in response to FOIA requests about living third parties and to refuse to disclose documents without a privacy waiver by the target of the request. This is boilerplate. It neither confirms nor denies the existence of the documents.I think if you read the Declaration again, you will find it contains nothing whatsoever confirming the existence of any responsive records.

Whew! I'm always hesitant to post an answer that has anything to do with the legal stuff, for fear of being wrong, but in this instance it looks like I actually got it right! That's cause for dancing.....but then again, I'm easily amused. And just happy to not be wrong in public any more than absolutely necessary.

Whew! I'm always hesitant to post an answer that has anything to do with the legal stuff, for fear of being wrong, but in this instance it looks like I actually got it right! That's cause for dancing.....but then again, I'm easily amused. And just happy to not be wrong in public any more than absolutely necessary.Don't worry about being wrong, the folks here will set ya straight nicely. Even a acorn...err a truff...err hell with it.

I think if you read the Declaration again, you will find it contains nothing whatsoever confirming the existence of any responsive records.Thanks, I guess I expected either a simple statement that there are no records responsive to the request or that any information, if gathered, is exempt.Thanks, again.

I think if you read the Declaration again, you will find it contains nothing whatsoever confirming the existence of any responsive records.Thanks, I guess I expected either a simple statement that there are no records responsive to the request or that any information, if gathered, is exempt.Thanks, again.You're welcome. The reason they have the policy of a uniform blanket denial is that by adopting a policy of responding in a divergent way when there are responsive records would inadvertently disclose information to which the requester is not entitled, that is, that there are responsive records. Responding in either case with a blanket denial serves to protect the privacy interest of the target.

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss; denying without prejudice 8 Motion for Trial. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, it ORDERED that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler as Defendant is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Set Case for Trial is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 3/13/2013. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 03/13/2013)